Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
Opening Statement
Dear FRiends:
I once suffered two great frustrations in being a freelance political writer. First, the loneliness: you put an article out there, and you might as well have thrown it down a black hole for all the response you get. Second, the ghettoization: when you do get response, it would be from folks you agree with. Not fun for folks like me who reliish--no, crave and need--political argument.
Then came the Internet, the blogs--and: problem solved.
I have especially enjoyed having my articles in the Village Voice posted on Free Republic by "dead," and arguing about them here. The only frustration is that I never have enough time--and sometimes no time--to respond as the threads are going on. That is why I arranged for an entire afternoon--this afternoon--to argue on Free Republic. Check out my articles and have at me.
A little background: I am a proud leftist who specializes in writing about conservatives. I have always admired conservatives for their political idealism, acumen, stalwartness, and devotion. I have also admired some of their ideas--especially the commitment to distrusting grand social schemes, and the deep sense of the inherent flaws in human nature. (To my mind the best minds in the liberal tradition have encompassed these ideals, while still maintaining that robust social reform is still possible and desirable. My favorite example is the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, author of the Serenity Prayer and a great liberal Democrat.)
Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.
I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.
Finally, in what I see as the errors of the Iraq campaign, I recognize the worst aspects of arrogant left-wing utopianism: the idea that you can remake a whole society and region through sheer force of will. I think Iraq is a tragic disaster (though for the time being the country is probably better off than it was when Saddam was around--but only, I fear, for the time being).
I am also, by the way, a pretty strong critic of my own side, as can be seen in my latest Village Voice piece.
So: I'm yours for the day--until 7:10 pm CST, when I'm off to compete in my weekly trivia contest at the University of Chicago Pub. Until then: Are you ready to rumble?
Respectfully,
Rick Perlstein
Given this golden opportunity to respond and directly debate articles with the author, I have reviewed the Perlstein articles posted. Unfortunately, I had trouble finding anything that Perlstein has been written to be significant enough for a response from me.
The only question that I have is this: Have you acknowledged in print that Bush critic Dick Clarke -- and not W himself -- was responsible for the departure of the Bin Laden family members?
You nailed it. I cannot recall a conservative Supreme Court Justice saying she doesn't follow the US Constitution but follows "international law". She should have been removed from the Court but since she is a liberal it wouldn't be PC I guess
FReegards...MUD
Maybe he will answer but I doubt it.
thanks, I'm heading there now.
Before I trudge through a million responses, can you give a good edition of why the Iraq war is a mistake/quagmire if no WMD are found? I have 5-6 good reasons why it's a sound (if not brilliant) strategic and practical move.
Your own article admits there are no "cuts" in the VA budget. The only change is the imposition of an income ceiling for new veterans seeking treatment of non-service related medical problems. That's not a "cut", no matter how the left tries to distort the truth.
I send this link to any of my liberal friends who try and spin the old “Veterans benefits slashed” canard.
Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144
So calling President George W. Bush a "deserter" is a "deep principle"? You haven't answered a single question yet, but responded with references to your magazine articles and leftist platitudes. I'm tired of this charade.
Where I grew up, that was called "being a boy". Goes hand-in-hand with skinning knees, playing in mud, climbing trees and the like.
At some point a boy grows out of it. I did. An incident, an experience, an epiphany. And lo, I was on my way to becoming a man. Some don't - they may take these actions on to other animals, pets, and people. Which ain't a Good Thing (TM). There's a whole generation going to grow up without these life experiences to shape them. They will instead have outcome-based education, and games sanctioned by personal-injury lawyers. I don't know what the outcome will be.
It's nonsensical to project current mores onto bygone eras, and it's a great height of conceit (and a chief liberal failing) to believe that we are living in the greatest, most-enlightened age and should apply our Superior Wisdom (TM) to all that has gone and all that's to come. It simply doesn't work. The one constant through all ages is human nature.
As long as we're painting with broad brushstrokes, I will give me own opinion regarding the three greatest defining traits of the modern liberal.
1. Hypocrisy - The end justifies the means if the means is noble enough. This is moral relativism, and I do not subscribe to it. I believe in absolute truths, and while I recognize shades of gray, it is the rarest of them that is not shaded more white or more black. Every anti-racism initiative of the left is by definition an hypocrisy, because it assumes that every individual is first and foremost not an individual, but a subset of a larger recognizable race-based (or whatever) identity group. This is the polar-opposite of being color-blind. I'd bet you if MLK could speak to the situation, he'd find more conservatives following his ideals than liberals.
2. Narcissism - There is more than we will ever know than we can even conceive of. I do not pretend to have all the answers, let alone try to inflict them on others through social engineering programs and the like. Again, it's the height of conceit for me to believe that I know what's better for anyone else than they themselves do. Many liberals are convinced that conservates are consumed with how much we hate liberals, and it's simply not the case. It's narcissistic to think I obsess on these philosophical differences. I don't care a whit what they do, right up until they start reaching into my wallet and telling me what I can't do. Which is entirely too often these days.
3. Socialism - Goes without saying, huh? I don't know, maybe those who need to identify with a greater group don't have a strong enough sense of self to say "I do what I need, and apart from that, I do what I want." I define myself less a conservative, than an anti-socialist. Subverting the individual to the group is tyranny. Confiscation of merited properties for group-based redistribution is tyranny. Political correctness is tyranny. Conservatives and liberals both have fallen into this trap. My rights were granted by God, and I don't remember the one about the right to Prescription Drugs. We're cascading into a society that confuses rights with entitlements, freedom with irresponsibility. I have no potential answer for that.
Somewhere along the way, the germination of some lofty and noble ideas was co-opted and corrupted and became the modern liberal left that we see today. It's a difficult task to argue to them that any moral high ground they claim was built with straw on a house of cards on a floodplain, because the ones I know are filled the conviction of the True Believer (a trait of the so-called 'Religious Right' as well). That, and a really visceral hatred of George W. Bush.
My own concept of conservatism is summed by the motto "Mind Your Business". Take personal responsibility for your actions and the outcomes of your actions - it's not McDonald's fault you dropped your coffee, and I think even near-sighted illiterate Bantu tribesman are aware that cigarette smoking poses certain health risks. Ultimately, not enough people have the wherewithall to say "This Bad Thing that happened to me is nobody's problem but mine," and deal with it.
There's a greater machination behind all of these societal symptoms (unseen hand, anyone?) we're pointing out that won't be clear until long after we've fossilized on the bedrock of time. But sure it's fun to speculate on where the Big Ship is headed. Some of even try to steer it a little. Me, I have a little cabin on a nondescript midships deck, and I'm going to look after it. That's my contribution. A conservative contribution, if you will.
whoop-de-do ping.
I've heard he was a prosecutor, so I assume he did finish law school.
Obviously, Mr. Perlstein conveniently avoided many of the more difficult questions fer Lib'rals to answer.
FReegards...MUD
"Of course, two years after Bush made his pledge, only 2 percent of the AIDS money has been distributed (in any event, it will mainly go to drug companies)."
Rick, something that may of escaped your attention, it's the drug companies that make the Anti-AIDs drugs. Where else would you suggest the money be distributed to?
Nine hours later: I'm still waiting for one intelligent answer. When do you think he will respond?
Please see 1036.
Church of Bush: What liberal infidels will never understand about president (FREEPERS quoted)
I linked directly to the original post of that article at the beginning of this thread. It’s one of the articles he was trying, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to defend.
Are you under the impression that he wrote that after the debate thread? If so, you are wrong. In fact, the original post of that article is the very thread where he said he would debate Freepers.
He said he wouldn’t cite anybody from the debate thread and, so far, I’ve seen no evidence that he has. I think you are confused.
Oh, I'm sorry; I thought it was a post/article he wrote after he was here.
And, yes, I am confused.
I don't think Perlstein did very well, even considering how badly he was outnumbered.
He took a brutal pounding on the rather obscure Veteran's funding issue in the early rounds, and never really got his legs under him after that.
If there was a ref, he should have called it right there, instead of letting it drag on and on like that. It was painful to watch that sort of brutality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.